How Can I Improve Performance Of My Video Card?

You do not have a video card.

You have a video chip on your motherboard.

If your video output is inadequate for your requirements the only way to improve that is to install a video card.

I suggest nVidia and please pay attention to AGP or PCIe connector slots. Older motherboards would have AGP slots.

Andre, under XP on the same computer, I've never had a slow issue like I do now under ubuntu. Why under ubuntu do I have one? This doesn't make sense, given the fact that ubuntu is purported to be a better o/s than XP. This is a complaint that I hear from many people.

Now, getting back to your answer, would I have to open up my laptop and install this video chip on my motherboard? I thought mine was integrated onto my motherboard. Please let me know, and thanks.

I did not know that you had a "slow issue" - perhaps this might be good to put as a new question.

On my machine (desktop), Ubuntu is considerably faster than XP.

I did not know that you had a laptop computer nor do I know what kind. Some laptops are more capable than others. As far as rebuilding the innards, I would advise against it except for a RAM increase.

As I said before, you do not have a video card. You have a motherboard integrated video chip.

This video chip has to share available resources with a few other chips such as audio and networking. Perhaps your RAM and/or processing power is insufficient for the tasks that you expect your machine to perform.

Well andre, I'm experiencing slowness when it comes to scrolling through .docs and .pdfs on openoffice and evince. When I scroll through these docs, the scrolling is slow and it really sucks. Do you know of a way to improve upon my video chip to dramatically increase scrolling and video quality? Thanks.

That is more likely to be a lack of memory, especially seeing as document files, and PDFs can be rather large.

Lack of memory? I already gt 1.5 Gigs or Ram.

Lack of memory? I already gt 1.5 Gigs of Ram.

That memory is probably shared with the video chip but even still it should be sufficient for most common tasks. Perhaps if you could provide the full specs of the system in question.

However, I'm wondering if we aren't missing the point. You mentioned that speed seems slow when scrolling. Perhaps it's not a video or ram issue at all. How are you scrolling? I know I've had issues where the scroll wheel on a mouse was taking too many "rolls" to scroll. Maybe it's something like that. I know I've put Ubuntu on low power netbooks with minimal specs and scroll speed was never an issue - actually it was usually the opposite as the touchpad is often too sensitive.

Jim, I got 1.3 Gigs CPU, 1.5 Gigs Ram, Gateway laptop. And just to let you know, whenever I configure my xorg.conf settings and change the color depth from 24 bits to 16 bits, I get a faster system with faster scrolling and video (although still not fast enough). What do you suggest? Could it be the sharing of memory with the video chip like you said?

Also, should I download intel drivers for this video chip? Could that be an answer?

Not enough processing power and not enough RAM. That is what I said before and that is also what Jim supports.

1.3 GHz CPU is a very modest outfit...and how do you get 1.5 GB of RAM? Do you have 3 x 500 MB modules or did you add a 500 MB module to the existing 1GB module. That does not work.

Looking at all the other posts originating from you I suspect that your equipment is just not up to the tasks that you expect from it.

You will have to be content with climbing any hills at a lower speed until you can get a more powerful vehicle.

I don't have any experience with changing color depth but I suspect you are asking less of your GPU when you do that so performance goes up. That supports what Andre says too about not enough horsepower. When you decrease demands (or in Andre's terns climb a less steep hill) your computer performs better. Still, I've used ubuntu on an HP Mini Note which has a 1.2ghz via CPU, 1 GB RAM and onboard via graphics. This is certainly a lower power rig than you have but doesn't display any issues with scrolling. However, it is newer technology so maybe that helps. What is the exact CPU in your laptop?

For more info on your GPU see http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intel852gm/

I don't think there is an Intel proprietary driver for video. I was under the impression their drivers were open source so my guess is you already have the right driver. However, you might check this

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FixVideoResolutionHowto#Intel%20Graphics%20driver%20(i810)%20won%27t%20use%20high%20screen%20resolutions

It's actually for a different problem but does detail how to install the intel driver. This may or may not be the correct procedure for your card so you might want to do a bit of checking. However, worst case would be you break X and can't get to the desktop so you will have to just have to undo the changes to the xorg.conf file from the command line which isn't a big deal or boot the live CD and fix it.

Ok, here's the deal. I had an old (and I do mean old) computer running win '95 with 64 bits of ram, and 233 Gigs CPU. Given that, I was able to scroll without a hiccup and view video without a problem. And now, that I got a relatively new computer with 1.3 Gigs CPU and 1.5 Ram, you're telling me that it's not enough horsepower to do these simple tasks? Do you guys think that what you're saying makes any sense given these factors?

I think ubuntu was a good idea for a bit, experimental at best. I truly think it's about time I move on to something that really works. I really don't want to part ways with ubuntu, but it's not living up to its promise. And plus, I read that Vista was faster. I think I'll install Leopard on this laptop PC. I really don't want to remove ubuntu, but ubuntu doesn't make sense given my hardware potential.

To answer your question andre, I originally had 512 Ram and later added 1 GB of Ram for a total of 1.5 RAM.

It's hard to compare one computer to another with so many possible variables. I know ubuntu can run well on low power computers like the HP Mini Note. Like I said a few posts up, your system sounds like it should be fine but clearly it is not performing the way you want. It could be hardware or it could be something not configured right. It could be too many changes and things are conflicting. What happens with a default install and the proper video driver (assuming it is not loaded by default)?

Ubuntu is lighter than both vista and leopard and should run as good or better. If it doesn't then something is wrong with how it's configured. It could be that something is detected right like the video driver or it could be that something was changed that is less optimal. The problems you describe are an anomaly. Slow video is not normally an issue - when things are set up right.

Ubuntu is not experimental. It is a solid, stable and usable operating system. I've been using it exclusively for 3 years. It's not perfect but that is mostly due to a lack of hardware support from vendors. When hardware is supported things work very well. My system runs great and is by no means a work horse. I built it 3 years ago specifically to run Ubuntu and used what was at the time end of life technology (thus cheap) and is now quite out of date.

Regarding Leopard, you can't put it on a gateway. Well, you can but you will be forcing a square peg in a round hole and violating the EULA as well (not that most people care). Putting OSX on a non-apple computer is definitely an experiment.

If you want to try and get Ubuntu running right, I would suggest a fresh install to start with. Don't change anything and see what works and what doesn't. Then research each problem and do the minimum to fix it. You may need wifi drivers so install them. For video, make sure you are using the right driver but nothing else. You should not need to change color depth so leave that and make sure the other settings are right like resolution and of course the driver. If you notice problems scrolling, is that the only problem or are there other symptoms that point to video issues. What is the CPU load? Run "top" in a terminal and see if there are any rogue apps. Explore those issues before taking more drastic measures.

Anyway, that's how I would proceed. If your hardware is Linux friendly then Ubuntu should run fairly well for common tasks.

RAM is always added in matching pairs, so that if you had 512 MB you would add another 512 MB. When you put in 1GB you should have discarded the 512 MB or else replaced it with another 1 GB. There is also the matter of matching your RAM to what your motherboard's bus frequency processor can support so you need to pay attention to the speed of the RAM.

512 MB is the lowest amount that many systems with integrated chips can run on so you wisely added extra RAM (but see above).

There are two things you can try:

1. Remove the 512 MB module. Check your motherboard book as to which memory channel should be populated first - you may have to remove the 512 and insert the 1GB in its place.

2. You can modify "swappiness". By default this is set to 60 in Ubuntu. I have mine set to 10 to reduce the frequency of transfers of items in memory to the hard drive swap partition (hard drives are slower than RAM).

You do that via a terminal: sudo gedit /etc/sysctl.conf
At the end of that file, about line 22, if there is no swappiness entry, add "vm.swappiness=10" (without the quotes). If there is a swappiness entry, change the value from 60 to 10.
Save the change and exit. Reboot.

Please post back if these suggestions have resulted in improvements.

Wow, two posts at exactly the same time. Good catch on the RAM. I didn't think of that.

Hi, andre and jim. I had actually tweaked my system before, like a month ago, and had changed swappiness to 0. So, I dont think that's a problem.

On another forum, I posted my xorg.conf and it was pointed out that it doesn't have any modules. Someone suggested that I enable GLX and DRI. Perhaps enabling them will be the answer, but how knows. If you guys want to see this forum, the link is:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/how-can-i-improve-performance-of-my-video-card-669574/page2.html

The only item that I have in my modules section is "Load glx".

To alter your xorg.conf file just open it in a terminal (sudo gedit /etc/xorg.conf) and write the module in. Save, exit and then restart X. Please note, before you do that, back it up.

I have bookmarked your link so that I can follow progress.

Good Luck!

Andre, how are you? I had added some lines to my 'modules' section of my xorg.conf. However, when I restart X and check to see if glx is loaded, and it tells me that it's not. It's listed below. What do I do now?

x@xx:~$ glxinfo | grep direct
direct rendering: No (LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT set)

Also, here's my xorg.conf so you can see for yourself:

Section "Module"
    Load "extmod"
    Load "freetype"
    Load "i2c"
    Load "ddc"
    Load "dri"
    Load "glx"
    Load "GLcore"
EndSection

Section "Files"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
 Identifier "Generic Keyboard"
 Driver "kbd"
 Option "CoreKeyboard"
 Option "XkbRules" "xorg"
 Option "XkbModel" "pc105"
 Option "XkbLayout" "us"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
 Identifier "Configured Mouse"
 Driver "mouse"
 Option "CorePointer"
 Option "Device" "/dev/input/mice"
 Option "Protocol" "ImPS/2"
 Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5"
 Option "Emulate3Buttons" "true"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
 Identifier "Synaptics Touchpad"
 Driver "synaptics"
 Option "SendCoreEvents" "true"
 Option "Device" "/dev/psaux"
 Option "Protocol" "auto-dev"
 Option "HorizEdgeScroll" "0"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
 Driver "wacom"
 Identifier "stylus"
 Option "Device" "/dev/input/wacom"
 Option "Type" "stylus"
 Option "ForceDevice" "ISDV4" # Tablet PC ONLY
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
 Driver "wacom"
 Identifier "eraser"
 Option "Device" "/dev/input/wacom"
 Option "Type" "eraser"
 Option "ForceDevice" "ISDV4" # Tablet PC ONLY
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
 Driver "wacom"
 Identifier "cursor"
 Option "Device" "/dev/input/wacom"
 Option "Type" "cursor"
 Option "ForceDevice" "ISDV4" # Tablet PC ONLY
EndSection

Section "Device"
 Identifier "Intel Corporation 82852/855GM Integrated Graphics Device"
 Driver "intel"
 BusID "PCI:0:2:0"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
 Identifier "Generic Monitor"
 Option "DPMS"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
 Identifier "Default Screen"
 Device "Intel Corporation 82852/855GM Integrated Graphics Device"
 Monitor "Generic Monitor"
 DefaultDepth 16
 SubSection "Display"
  Modes "1280x768"
 EndSubSection
EndSection

Section "ServerLayout"
 Identifier "Default Layout"
 Screen "Default Screen"
 InputDevice "Generic Keyboard"
 InputDevice "Configured Mouse"

# Uncomment if you have a wacom tablet
# InputDevice "stylus" "SendCoreEvents"
# InputDevice "cursor" "SendCoreEvents"
# InputDevice "eraser" "SendCoreEvents"
 InputDevice "Synaptics Touchpad"
EndSection

Section "DRI"
    Mode 0666
EndSection

You certainly now have a "Module" section, one that you did not have before.

I use an nvidia graphics card (not a chip) with its own RAM. The nvidia driver is automatically configured in Hardy and I have no idea how to do that for an Intel driver nor do I know if it can or needs to be done.

All the output of "glxinfo | grep direct" tells you is that direct rendering is not active. Whether or not that would make a difference to your perceived graphics problems I cannot say.

With respect, the options I would pursue is to either switch to Xubuntu which would not strain the meager computer resources available or buy a more capable machine or follow the advice given in the following URL:

http://linuxondesktop.blogspot.com/2007/03/13-applications-to-install-on-ubuntu.html

An dre, do you think I can reduce my current color depth from 16 bit to 8 bit to see if maybe this may speed things up?

If you can do so, try it. 256 colours at 8bit depth. That would speed things up. I cannot comment on what it would look like, only you can decide if it will suffice.

andre I know what the issue is now. The reason why my video and scrolling on writer are slow is due to my compiz-fusion. When I turn it off, my computer flys! Is there any way I can lessen the intensity of compiz-fusion? I only want to enable just 2 features of compiz-fusion.

Thanks Andre Mangan, that solved my question.

meh; not great support I'd say guys ;) taurus, you clearly mentioned XP worked fine on these specs for the tasks you said about, so that is hardly a lack of hardware firepower issue.

In fact, I'm on a very similar (spec-wise) machine right now, and the only issue I have is DMA support on my CF card adapter (moved away from my 1.8" slow disk).

anyway, without direct rendering, you obviously have no hardware 3d acceleration. you can look it up on google.

without hardware accel, this is what happens (ie, slow scrolls, no compiz, etc). try looking at /var/log/Xorg.0.log for more info about your card/glx etc.

also, update to newer Ubuntu - preferably the stable version of 8.04, or an updated 8.10

8.04 still uses i810 driver, which seemed slightly faster for me on this old chip than the new intel driver, which is the only one available on 8.10 (it no longer supports i810).

good luck

Bit aggressive taurus, but at least you got an answer. I tried to report, what I thought was a bug (314688), regarding overheating which NEVER occurred on CPU intensive programs running pre-Hardy or Windows installations. Never got a response and thought I must have reported the entire matter incorrectly.

But like you, I installed Ubuntu some 2.5 years ago for the purposes of getting more out of an older/less specified machine. However, I now wish I persevered with raw Debian and built the system kernel to a more bespoke setup.

Anyway, all's well that ends well.....for some!!!

Hi, IanG. Well, thank god I don't run ubuntu or other linux variant anymore! All I can say is, XP is the best, hasn't given me hassles, and linux just can't compete with it in any way. All in all, Ubuntu sucks!!!!!

I don't think Ubuntu sucks per se. For the money, it's pretty darn neat and the help you do get is dependent on volunteers as I see it. But you're right, it certainly isn't the panacea some advocates have us believe and it handles my graphics pretty badly - and mine's not OBG either; it's a separate card.

You simply have to set it up properly, if issues arise. And those are usually mentioned in the release notes anyway, so it's sort of like "hey we're aware of that issue, so if you run into it, you're prone to experience issues".

I have been running XP whenever I was FORCED to.

It caused me more headaches than any other system (yes, because 98 and 95 are too simple to even come up that list).

With Linux (any variant) the 99% of times I had a problem, was human factor.

So, I'd say Linux (in general) is a way safer bet. Been running it for ages (like many other people) and had no problems since.

I suggest you also try the newest available version of a given distro, before accusing it of problems.

Cheers

imachine stated - "You simply have to set it up properly, if issues arise." Who are you talking to?

Obviously the person having troubles in this particular question.

imachine - no it isn't obvious. That's why it's helpful to include names when commenting.

imachine, you stated in reply to IanG that the reason why he's having a problem with ubuntu is that he's got ot set up his machine properly. This may be true tfor ubuntu, unfortunately, but this isn't the case with XP. XP sets up everything for you automatically where you don't have to run into hassles and risks as I'd experienced on ubuntu. Why anyone would want to welcome headache from messing around with live dynamite (linux) is WAY beyond me. IanG, if you want a stable, clean, and headache-free life, stick to XP.

Don't diverge because in the end, you'll have wished you had heeded my warning. You'll be thinking about cracking your computer in half in frustration. Trust me and several thousands of people who regret ever trying ubuntu and not sticking to XP. What ubuntu has done (or has failed to do) has literally brought tears to my eyes. Ubuntu will keep you up at night and tear you away from your life since you'll have great difficulty keeping up with it and holding it together with temporary bandaids. It's a suicide mission with ubuntu, pure and simple. I can't overemphsize enough how much of a failure and waste ubuntu is. It's like shaking hands with the devil, knowing in the end you'll forfeit your soul for nothing.

.

Jeeez.... I did *NOT* state it as a reply to Ian but to YOU. Ian just stumbled upon the topic and has nothing to do with it. How many more times will I have to state the obviously painfully clear?

Anyway,

As regards your comment about XP setting things up "automatically" I'd say it's a very narrow opinion of yours, since you never ran into problems with XP, or maybe you regard things to this particular case. If it is the latter, then, to not go offtopic, it's not XP but Intel, since it's Intel who developed graphics drivers for XP. Probably for a bit of a dime too, if I'm not mistaken, but fear not, Intel supports opensource very well, and is likely to fix your issue, only as far as you will *tell* them about it (mailing lists, etc).

Spilling tears in a general-ubuntu bug channel on launchpad will get the devs attention eventually, and they will sort it out by marking the bug as upstream (i.e. Intel or Kernel, or X.org or whatever) but you're in a better chance if you do that yourself. Not knowing the architecture is not really an excuse - in XP you'd know as well that if you have problems with graphics, it's either the drivers, or the hardware, but (ideally, since by my experience you can't fully rely on XP) most likely not the OS.

I've been using Linux for over 5 years. It has never caused me cries, so don't bludgeon me with your pains mate. Ubuntu's actually one of the most SIMPLE and EASY distros to setup and run, even in beta stage (basing this on 9.04).

I suggest using the Internet as one important tool for searching for errors and issues with Ubuntu, and Linux in general, there are many howtos and helpful people, and there is bug sites such as this one, what I'm getting at, is that it might be a bit different finding errors and fixing them than it is coming from XP, but in the end, if you learn how to do it, I suppose you'll be happy and won't want to go back, minus the few setbacks such as not all games working and some other apps natively ;)

imachine, YOU WERE referring your comments to IanG since your comments coincide with those of IanG. Are you OK?

Regarding the automatic functioning of XP, all I can say is ubuntu is not afforded this luxury. This has nothing to do with Intel whatsoever and you know it. XP works beautifullly on AMD, Intel, and other chips. Ubuntu on the other hand has a difficult, if not, impossible compatibility issue with many computers (case in point, my own and MANY of my friends). And it's funny how ubuntu-loving guys like you switch the blame from XP to Intel knowing XP is the better O/S. In reality, it's not Intel, it's ubuntu.

Not knowing XP well is no excuse. In XP, you know very well that if you run into problems, all you have to do is reinstall the app, use a different app, or update your drivers. XP drivers are updated to work on XP-compliant apps as they're well-tested. In ubuntu, problems arise because of the nature of the O/S (it's SLOWWW) and updates don't fix anything nor make it run faster. On XP, my computer loads in 28 secs, without disabling services. With ubuntu, on the same machine, loading time took 1 minute and 40 secs - and mind you, this was AFTER I disabled about 40 services, in which case, I didn't notice any difference between before and after disabling services.

I know you get problems with ubuntu but would never alarm the linux community since that would violate the "code" of allegiance to linux and its anti-gates crowd. Such a move would ostricize you from the community and make you an outcast. Yes, I know that gates is seen as darth vader. I got XP, so don't try to convince me that ubuntu doesn't suck since all my friends who tried it hated it with a passion.

I suggest you google what ubuntu has done to people. Maybe this way you can save yourself from a life of misery under ubuntu. There are forums that speak volumes about this as a subject. I'm sure that you can find XP to be much more problem-free than ubuntu as you know ubuntu is ALWAYS being "updated" for errors that ALWAYS come up. You'll appreciate XP once you stop relying on a system that you got to constantly apply bandaids for. Your life under XP will be secure and you don't have to go to sleep disturbed knowing that your data isn't safe. And you won't encounter issues with games on XP, specially when the best games out there work in XP and are impossible to load in ubuntu.
.

I'm sorry, I'm 24 and I'm in no way near touched by your anti-gates paranoia.

I think you're just a troll, based on your explanations.

I run Ubuntu/Linux because I like Ubuntu/Linux and find it useful and trustworthy, not because I need some elitist badge.

Oh, and I *was* commenting your problem, not Ians. I damn well know what I'm talking about.

I think we're through here.

Ha ha ha.... I think YOU'RE the one with the paranoia since you're still rocking ubuntu.... Hahahaha! I got XP, I'm problem free, dumbass. DUHHHH!

You're frustrated fudge packer for ubuntu.

You run linux because you were either brainwashed into thinking that bill gates and windows are evil or you're a bandwagon rider.

And umm, you commented on Ian, not me. Someone else and I observed this. Scroll up and read... just make ubuntu isn't slow enough for you to scroll though... hahaha.

I'm done with your gay ass.

Yea, so I was looking for some support for my install of Ubuntu 8.04 on a USB stick and how to increase the performance... and I stumbled across this thread. Pretty good until about half-way down... then it gets pretty pathetic. But, I may as well ring in:

So I usually don't get in the middle of childish games such as bashing people in forums, but I feel like Ubuntu needs a little support here.

First of all, there is nothing wrong with XP it is an exceptional (the best!) OS out there, especially for gamers like myself. I use XP quite a bit more than I use Ubuntu, however, XP stands no chance against the capabilities of Ubuntu (or any Linux OS). Ubuntu is a more-than-exceptional "programmers" OS. It is an OS that you have to learn how to use it and (in most cases) you spend 80% of your time configuring it HOW you want it. Not in XP because you don't even have the option to configure... with the exception of changing themes, desktop background, etc... XP is created for the AVERAGE individual and like Tauraus said "XP set's everything up for you." It's the "lazy-mans" OS (no offense to anyone, I too can be quite lazy).

At any rate, Ubuntu is a good option for those who enjoy an occasional challenge and who aren't lazy and want everything handed to them on a platter (yes, I speak for myself too because as I mentioned earlier I use XP a lot). I am being honest when I say I've spent a majority of my life the past two years in forums reading "how to configure your xorg.conf," or "how to disable [thus]," or "how to enable [that]." It deserve a bit more respect than what Taurus and IanG are giving it.

The best thing about ubuntu is that you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for it and technical support is FREE... yea, everything is free and it is better than XP in many ways!

Just a bit of my mind... Ubuntu doesn't suck and XP doesn't suck. The people bashing Ubuntu because they don't know how to use it or they aren't patient enough to use it are morons and need to grow up.

Get over it!

christnp stated, "The people bashing Ubuntu because they don't know how to use it or they aren't patient enough to use it are morons and need to grow up."

Well for someone who allegedly claims to not liking, "childish games such as bashing people in forums" has done just that! And just to let you know, "moron" as you state, is, according to Webster, "a mentally retarded person whose intellectual development proceeds normally up to about the eighth year of age and is then arrested so that there is little or no further development". I do therefore object and ask you to please desist from using derogatory and cheap stereotypes assigned to mental disability. I've worked with such people and this type of comment is unhelpful.

But taking what you say at face value and looking at the issues simplistically, I quite agree. However, I think you miss the point with Ubuntu. Like a few other distros (Mint etc) it aims at more mainstream users who simply don't have the time to mess around or accept, like I do, that if they are going to spend time on a distro, they might end up using Debian or another developer's flavour like Gentoo. Let's face it, even XP (and Windows 2000 which is the only MS system I'll run), has flaws which require time and energy to resolve and Ubuntu should be no exception, but when claims are made that certain OS's "work out of the box", as developers have in the past suggested of Ubuntu, then a certain amount of frustration will ensue. What also has to be remembered is that this is a two way process, a natural symbiosis; developers require users and users require developers. So when matters appear unresolved for months on end, this might not be anyone's fault per se, but common courtesy either way should entail - after all where a user's bug report has been ignored, end users are entitled to question this - especially when all it takes is footnote either way, or an indicator of concern from those who volunteer (not forced) to resolve certain tasks.

I don't think anyone is being 'lazy' when patience runs thin as I'm sure Mark Shuttleworth himself will testify. We all want Ubuntu to work as a viable alternative to 'mainstream' OS's. Some of the issues lie unresolved for weeks and months on end. In some hardware configurations, and despite being told they work, some CPU's overheat and some printers don't print etc, despite boundless effort from the end user in trying to resolve the issue. No-one begrudges an OS, especially GNU licence/free efforts, when things go wrong - that's part of the deal for sure, but people are entitled to moan if they've invested in hardware and tried their level best to conform to the restrictions laid down as their commitment to a project.

People having a go at each other I agree, is unfortunate, but understand this; without complaints product developers don't learn from any shortfalls and mistakes that exist. If people have invested their time and money in a product, no matter how cheap or expensive, then they are entitled to highlight deficiencies. How else will a product improve?

IanG,

First of all, I apologize for using the term "moron" in an everyday, desensitized usage that has been established by the modern day society (e.g. moron => idiot). And by the way, google "define:moron" and the first definition is precisely what I meant. However, I did not intentionally mean to offend anyone nor did I mean to disrespect the mentally disabled. I simply was trying to make my point that Taurus is an idiot; and by the way, Taurus has been using MUCH more degrading language than I (e.g. "gay ass," "fudge packer", etc.), yet you don't seem to mind much. I find that a little prejudice. Don't you?

IanG stated "Well for someone who allegedly claims to not liking, 'childish games such as bashing people in forums' has done just that!" Read what I wrote in the second paragraph. I never said "I don't like" I simply said that I "don't usually get in the middle of childish games..." Thus implying that my intentions were to get into the middle of the "childish" games.

I do agree with most everyone you have stated in your previous post. However, in most cases "giving up" is due to laziness. True, some people have worked hard and just can't quite get the hang of it or can't justify working on a free OS when you can pay a couple hundred for one that works on first install.

After some research I did discover that Ubuntu.com does indeed state a few times that, "Once installed, your system is immediately ready-to-use." And I do agree that this is far from true because, more times than not, your hardware is not supported, etc. However, it's free and one has to be naive to think that 10 times out of 10, your Ubuntu install will be flawless.

IanG stated, "if people have invested their time and money in a product, no matter how cheap or expensive, then they are entitled to highlight deficiencies." Very true, but this is by far the worst example I have seen of this. By Taurus' posts, I got the impression that he simply gave up and was not pointing out any "deficiencies" (at least by about mid-way through the thread), but was more-or-less bashing Ubuntu and praising Windows. This in no way helps persuade the developers (as they probably read half of the thread and then ignored the rest) and, thus, does not help the product improve.

Christnp,

The good thing is, we appear to have reached a consensus but to be fair, I did have a go a taurus by suggesting he was being a 'bit aggressive' (IanG said on 2009-03-18). But that aside, it's a shame taurus has apparently left the Ubuntu community - although I understand that if you haven't the time or inclination then in certain cases it might be better to stick with what you know.

For my part, I'm just grateful that Ubuntu developed into its current incarnation. Although flawed (which OS isn't), it's reliable enough for me to put it on my mainstream PCs around the home (including my wife's). However, for my backup server, firewall and main system, I still run Debian Etch for which I am prepared to spend time on.

christnp, I appreciate your comments, but I did notice that you contradicted yourself. Here's how. The following is what you said:

"XP it is an exceptional (the best!) OS out there, especially for gamers like myself. I use XP quite a bit more than I use Ubuntu, however, XP stands no chance against the capabilities of Ubuntu (or any Linux OS). Ubuntu is a more-than-exceptional "programmers" OS. It is an OS that you have to learn how to use it and (in most cases) you spend 80% of your time configuring it HOW you want it."

If XP is exceptional, as you say, why did you say that it won't stand up to ubuntu? Not only that, you said you'll spend 80% of the time configuring it. If that's the case, then, why is ubuntu that great of an o/s? If it were great, there wouldn't be a need to spend so much time on it. From my experience with ubuntu, I spent over 300% of my time in configuring it, not customizing it, but actually trying to get the thing to work properly, which failed to do so. I would spend lots of time until even 4am just to figure out how to make it work. In the end, it never worked. Video and sound were not up to par; it'd took almost 2 minutes to boot up; packages had to be reinstalled; download package manager downloaded stuff I had already uninstalled; programs took 8 - 15 secs to load up, etc. When I installed XP, it felt like a ton of bricks was lifted from me.

Then you said the following:

"The best thing about ubuntu is that you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for it."

In a sense, you're absolutely wrong. Even if the software is free, you still have to sacrifice your time and energy to get it to work properly. I'd rather spend $300 for XP than to get a free o/s and go through that stupid mess, going to sleep disturbed wondering how to get it to work.

.

Taurus, I'm glad to hear that you appreciate my comments.

First of all, yea I am kind of contradicting myself but I am doing so to prove that XP is a great OS and Ubuntu is a great OS (probably not the most efficient method, but I thought I was being clear enough). XP is EXCEPTIONAL on a gamers, multimedia, etc. side (as I kind of stated, but may not have been clear on). Where as Ubuntu is great (at least for most) on a programmers side (with the exception that in most cases it is good for some multimedia and it is becoming a great mainstream OS).

Secondly, I said that Ubuntu wouldn't stand up to XP because Ubuntu has more CAPABILITIES than XP (as stated in my post and your quote). Ubuntu is completely configurable on the users end (assuming that one can get it to function even at all, I'll expand on this topic a little bit more), where as XP is not configurable (aside from customizing themes, etc. as mention in my previous post). You can install pretty much anything on XP, but with Wine you can do the same on Ubuntu. Also, the shell commands in Ubuntu (and any Linux distro) make more sense than DOS shell commands. If you have your repositories set up properly, all you have to do (in most cases) it type: sudo apt-get install PACKAGE. And you have it installed ready to use. In XP you have to search for it on the WEB (or CD), download, run through the installation guide, etc. Anyways, as I stressed in my first post, XP is great for some things and Ubuntu is great for some things.

Taurus stated, "When I installed XP, it felt like a ton of bricks was lifted from me." I agree! As IanG (I think?) and I have stated, XP install is typically much smoother than any Linux install and it should be since you are paying for it (with money). As you somewhat stated, cash is in most cases the same as time (esp. if you are using time from work) and I agree with you there... to an extent. You say I am absolutely wrong when I said, "The best thing about Ubuntu is that you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for it." But remember that for some people (like my self) we don't have $300 to spend on every new Windows OS that comes out (I have XP because it came with my laptop). So Ubuntu IS THE BEST OS for some of us. But if I had $300 then I too would probably choose the OS that takes little to no configuring on the users end.

As IanG has stated, I'm sorry to see you leave the Ubuntu community. But to hopefully persuade you a little bit, I too have had trouble with installations of Ubuntu. Just a quick story that I did not mention before: when I was first getting into the idea of Ubuntu and building computers, I built a simple AMD box from used parts I collected and/or bought at a local computer store. I had all the hardware installed, a nice WD 500 GB HDD, decent video card, etc. But when I finally got to the software end of things, I could not (for the life of me) get Ubuntu to install, and I tried the alternate install as well. It would simply freeze up about half-way through the install. So after some posting on ubuntu.com forums, I came to the conclusion that the MB must not be supported. So all that time and work just to sell the computer the the computer store I had been buying parts from all along (because I had built solely for an ubuntu box).

At any rate, the moral of that story is to not give up, but just take a break from it. My advice (same as everyone else) is to give Ubuntu another try sometime (maybe after you buy your next machine). Because if you can get it to work properly, then it is definitely worth the time! Although, if you are a gamer then I'd recommend doing a dual boot of XP/Ubuntu or something like that.

Also, another recommendation (if you'd like to give Ubuntu a try right-away) would be to go out and buy an 8GB+ USB Pen Drive (~$25) and try installing Ubuntu on it. It gives you the chance to mess around with Ubuntu whenever you want while not ruining anything on XP. MAKE SURE YOU CHOOSE YOUR 8GB+ USB AS THE INSTALLATION TARGET.... otherwise say by, by to your main OS. You may also want to backup your main HDD (I did not, but most serious techy's would advise you to). This is what I am doing right now (along with Ubuntu as a VM) and it is pretty nice. I ran into some problems (as usual) but it was worth the time and trouble. If you do this, use Ubuntu 8.04+ because I couldn't get it to work with 7.04 (just an fyi). And I would not count on this being a permanent OS as it runs much slower than it would if it were on your primary HDD (because read/write to the USB is MUCH slower). But at least you can test it out a little more and see if you can't get it working. I'd also recommend using the Live CD install as I had trouble with video when I used the alternate CD (strange I know!).

That is all I have for you. Good luck!

IanG, I wasn't being aggressive. I was being real! I was just expressing the anguish I went through with ubuntu, which I don't recommend anyone on installing. Why anyone would want to subject themselves to self-torture and potential to data loss with ubuntu is beyond me. There are just TOO MANY negatives to make ubuntu stand out as a true alternative to XP. Ubuntu is just made for anti-gates/anti one-world-M$ fanatics and programmer enthusiasts, nothing more. I got 3 friends who tried it and quickly switched back to XP. To say that I hate ubuntu is an understatement.